Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elements of claim 7, harness extension (claim 8), quick release mechanism (claim 18), and user-friendly interface (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 18, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the specification does not adequately disclose how the trolley of the claimed invention would be capable of rotating about the z-axis. The trolley are disclosed as linearly travel with no indication being of how rotation about the z-axis would be possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the device of claim 4 based on the current disclosure.
Regarding claim 18, the quick-release mechanism of attaching to trolley to the overhead support without tools or additional hardware is not adequately described in the disclosure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, how the fall arrestor is adjusted without tools is not adequately described in the disclosure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this is a product claim which includes the method step of “over which an athlete traverses” which is improper (see MPEP 2173.05(p) II).
Regarding claim 1, “a lanyard” is claimed twice making it unclear if there are two lanyards being claimed or if this refers to the same single lanyard. For the remainder of the office action this will be understood as the same single lanyard.
Regarding claim 2, one or more cables or trusses are already included from claim 1, it is unclear how these already claimed elements would relate to the longitudinal and/or lateral members.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what defines the term “harness extension” and how it would urge as claimed, see drawing objection above.
The term “user-friendly” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudeith et al. (2020/0114182) in view of Blomberg (2011/0147125).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11, and 15, Sudeith discloses a sporting venue comprising: a sporting course (fig.3) having a first topography (area below 11) over which an athlete traverses; an overhead support structure comprising one or more cables or trusses (11) extending over the sporting course and configured to support a weight of the athlete; a trolley (12) slidably engaged with the overhead support structure and configured to travel with the athlete while traversing the sporting course; a self-retracting fall arrestor comprising a lanyard (13a) operably coupled to a braking system (14) configured to prevent or slow a fall of the athlete, and the lanyard extending from the self-retracting fall arrestor and configured to couple to a harness of the athlete, but is silient on the particular means of braking.
Blomberg teaches that known for auto belays to include an electromagnetic eddy brake (at least [0034]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electromagnetic eddy brake in the auto belay of Sudeith because replacing one braking system with another would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is also noted the applicant provides no criticality of using one brake means over any other.
Regarding claim 3, Sudeith discloses the overhead support structure defines a second topography corresponding to the first topography (see the corner shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Sudeith discloses the trolley is configured to provide a select amount of friction between the trolley and the overhead support structure (elements 22 contact 21 and will provide a degree of friction based on their selected materials).
Regarding claims, 8, 12, and 18, the examiner takes official notice that it is known to adjust the size of lanyards and fall arrestors based on the size of users. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include adjustability to increase to amount of users that could use the device it also inscreases safety by adjusting to the specific details of the user.
Regarding claim 9, Sudeith discloses a harness extension (18) capable of urging the lanyard away from a portion of an upper body of the athlete during use.
Regarding claim 14, the properties of the rope 13a of Subeith can broadly and reasonably be considered a shock absorber system.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudeith et al. (2020/0114182) in view of Blomberg (2011/0147125) in further view of Galloway et al. (9,089,465) or Lickle (7,351,155).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Sudeith discloses lacks specifically disclosing the overhead support structure comprises at least one longitudinal member and at least one lateral member coupled in a sliding engagement, wherein the trolley is coupled to the at least one lateral member.
Galloway (fig. 2) and Lickle (fig.1) teach that it is known in the fall support art to have such an arrangement.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include lateral and longitudinal support member similar to that of Galloway or Lickle to provide the user with more versatility and locations to travel.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudeith et al. (2020/0114182) in view of Blomberg (2011/0147125) in further view of Chantelois (9,364,695).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sudeith least one of the self-retracting fall arrestor is configured to automatically lock in place after a fall has been detected (14 is an auto-belay), but lacks the trolley locking.
Chantelois teaches that it is known in the art for a trolley to lock when a fall is detected (at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to lock the trolley when a fall is detected as this would increase safety by not allowing the person to slide with the trolley after falling.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudeith et al. (2020/0114182) in view of Thompson (11,260,253)
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Sudeith discloses shock-absorbing components (13a and its connections) and impact-resistant materials (a rope will inherenty offer some give which is therefore impact resistant, but lacks specifically disclosing reflective or luminescent elements.
Thompson teaches that it is known in the art to use reflective or luminescent elements (62).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reflective or luminescent elements as this would increase safety by increasing the visibility of the user.
Regarding claim 16, Thompson discloses using the claimed elements (at least 260). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use detection elements as this would allow notification such as the lights to be activated and increase safety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J TROY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
